Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

As far as kamae, both Saito's commentary and the English translation represent "always open your legs in six directions" as an archaic way of saying "hanmi", but I have my doubts, especially given the other problems in the other translations.

Yeah? But if true, that's a really interesting way to think about hanmi.

Yeah? But if true, that's a really interesting way to think about hanmi.

Again I would say Ueshiba knew what he was talking about and trying to point out in several areas. It doesn't say much for the translators awareness though. As Stan has pointed out very little of what the founder actually wrote is out there, It's worse when we consider that the little there is a translation by those so unfamiliar as to make the effort almost meaningless. Maybe it's become as bland a template as the families calculated choice to form a bland, rather generic, Aikido; a backdrop on which to write over what ever you wish it to be and call it good.
To me it's watching someones waza and not having a clue as to what is really going on, and then writing a book about what you just saw.
Dan

Hello Prof G and Josh Reyer, thank you for the excellent replies. I do know of the book Budo (the story of how excited Saito Sensei was when he first saw it is one of my favorites) but regarding authenticity, I was just referring to the discussion of its provenance. Since I haven't read that discussion, I assumed the worst, meaning that I was afraid it was not directly from the founder, but I will set that aside until I read Stan Pranin's comments on that.

Regarding kamae, roppo, and kabuki:
This is very interesting. Earlier I assumed "roppō" was a direct reference to the internal martial arts concept. Now it has been made clear that it could be a reference to Kabuki. (Admittedly there is a shared origin there, but not necessarily identical meanings at the time that Budo was written.) I guess any of these could be true:
- O-sensei was reappropriating a Kabuki term to refer to a specific kamae (hanmi)
- roppō was a term coined in Kabuki (or in the Shinto ritual precursers said to be the origin of the term in kabuki), and O-sensei was writing using that term to refer to an old concept in martial arts
- roppō was a term actually used in martial arts already (separate from Kabuki), like "sanchin," and O-sensei learned about the use of it from Takeda, and was referring to that.

I don't like the first one because in Kabuki, roppo is supposed to refer to a type of walking movement, but in these passages from Budo, it seems to refer to something that is to be paid attention to even apart from movement. So something like the other 2 possibilities seem more likely, which means we are back where we started:
the translations are bad, and also Saito Sensei's comments do not shed much light on the meaning that was intended in the original text.

I have to say, it throws me for a loop that O-Sensei was so hard to understand that even Japanese can't agree on the right way to simply write his words down. Still, I love these little glimpses of what he might have meant.

I have to say, it throws me for a loop that O-Sensei was so hard to understand that even Japanese can't agree on the right way to simply write his words down. Still, I love these little glimpses of what he might have meant.

Hugh, have you seen the interview quote where someone remembers him saying that even he doesn't understand the things he himself says?
I think both Tohei and Shioda remembered things to this effect.

He said he is a vessel for messages from the Kami, so he doesn't necessarily understand what comes out of his mouth.

Personally I don't think that is too nuts, but I do think it is very idealistic.

Would this way of speaking be taught or encouraed by the Omoto religion?

The equivalent in Christianity to speaking in tongues?

dps

Well AFAIK they were actual words and sentences, unlike the speaking in tongues. It could very well have been a part of Omoto's way of doing things.. they did have chinkon kishin practices. But at any rate, O-sensei's thought process and understanding of the universe was Omoto-influenced to say the least, so no matter how you slice it I think the things that came out of his mouth must be understood through the lens of that religion, but I guess we all realize that.

Hugh, have you seen the interview quote where someone remembers him saying that even he doesn't understand the things he himself says?
I think both Tohei and Shioda remembered things to this effect.

He said he is a vessel for messages from the Kami, so he doesn't necessarily understand what comes out of his mouth.

Personally I don't think that is too nuts, but I do think it is very idealistic.

Ah, Jonathan, I think you are muddying the waters here.

I agree with Dan Harden that it is best to assume that M Ueshiba was well aware of what he was doing with the Budo volume and that he approved what was stated there. Remember that the Budo volume was produced as a practical manual for the Japanese military, about to fight a major war in South Asia, and so we can perhaps assume that the explanations were understood by those instructors who were supposed to teach the rank and file.

So I think the issue is a translation issue, rather than anything related to the Omoto practice of chinkon kishin, which is known about here in Japan and has been studied in a context quite unrelated to Ueshiba and aikido. In any case, this manual was produced in 1938, many years after the practice of chinkon kishin had been stopped in Omoto. It is a further question--and a very interesting question--to what extent the practice of chinkon kishin in Omoto was related to Ueshiba's own personal training methods.

Whoever wrote the text of the Budo volume used the phrase 六方 and Ueshiba was happy with this and signed off on it. The fact that the phrase was used in kabuki is a start, but does not cast much light on what the phrase meant to Ueshiba.

The next question is whether the translation of John Stevens (60 degree angle), which is the only one publicly available at the moment, conveys what Ueshiba actually meant. The Kodansha editors were clearly satisfied, but there are grounds for thinking that it does not convey what Ueshiba meant and that they did not really have a clue.

On the other hand, there are no grounds for believing that 六方 means anything related to internal training. Of course, it might do, in the way that phrases from the 道歌 have been construed as a code for such training. The consequence is that a translator who does not understand IT is judged incapable of translating 六方 correctly (i.e., in accordance with what the IT believers think that Ueshiba really meant). I do not believe that this is correct. If it were correct, and if you generalize the hypothesis, it would render the practice of translation largely impossible.

As an analogy, consider the following. In one of my university classes, I require my students (non-native graduate students) to write a detailed description in English of a bicycle and how to ride one, for the benefit of someone who has never seen a bicycle. They have two tasks: first to make the description and explanation in their own language, in concepts they are easy with; secondly to translate this into English.

There are loads of conceptual issues here, apart from translation, one of which is IHTBF, or IHTBDB (it has to be done beforehand). Unless you have actually learned how to ride a bicycle and have actually ridden one, you cannot teach someone else how to do it. However, this is a different issue to that of explaining in words how to perform a complex physical action and many students confuse these issues and wrongly assume that teaching someone how to ride a bicycle is the same as describing what someone is actually doing when they are riding one.

Of course it might be a complex psycho-physical action, but in this case you also have to explain how the extra element of 'intent' actually leads to movement of the feet on the pedals and beyond. I can think of some Tohei-esque explanations. Extend ki right through your pedals and handlebars; mount the bicycle with a feeling of joy, and assume a roppo stance against all other road users (especially in London). Keep weight underside, i.e., below the saddle. Be totally relaxed, especially when using the brake and accelerator pedals. Etc etc.

Dear Phi,
I have been in the presence of a few mediums who use auditory links to spirits.i have also had an experience with of trance spirit doctor ie a man who adopted the persona of a dead doctor.
Since the Kami are in a sense a type of spirit, it may well be that O Sensei might have been a medium?. cheers, Joe.
Ps Lets not quote the old joke here!!

On the other hand, there are no grounds for believing that å ­æ--¹ means anything related to internal training. Of course, it might do, in the way that phrases from the é"æ­ have been construed as a code for such training. The consequence is that a translator who does not understand IT is judged incapable of translating å ­æ--¹ correctly (i.e., in accordance with what the IT believers think that Ueshiba really meant). I do not believe that this is correct. If it were correct, and if you generalize the hypothesis, it would render the practice of translation largely impossible.

Translators generally specialize in particular fields for that very reason - you can't translate something that you don't understand well. The more specialized the topic is the more important that becomes.

If I'm translating a medical text, it is important that I can actually understand what the text is saying, or else it's pretty easy to run into problems with the translated text. That's why you often see medical translation done by people who are actually medical doctors.

Then you have to consider whether or not the translators have altered the text for (often quite reasonable) reasons of their own. Take the Takemusu Edition of Budo translation - the translation is clearly altered, with "ki energy" substituted for "strength".

Translators generally specialize in particular fields for that very reason - you can't translate something that you don't understand well. The more specialized the topic is the more important that becomes.

If I'm translating a medical text, it is important that I can actually understand what the text is saying, or else it's pretty easy to run into problems with the translated text. That's why you often see medical translation done by people who are actually medical doctors.

Then you have to consider whether or not the translators have altered the text for (often quite reasonable) reasons of their own. Take the Takemusu Edition of Budo translation - the translation is clearly altered, with "ki energy" substituted for "strength".

Best,

Chris

Absolutely. I am aware of these issues, having been brought up in translating the Greek and Latin Classics. You have to establish the text first and then go on from there.

Thanks Prof Goldsbury, it is true that I muddied the waters a bit. Hugh's comment seemed general and it brought to my mind this general relationship b/w Ueshiba and confusion of meaning. But it was silly of me to suggest a connection b/w that issue and the printed text of a training manual.

I would disagree on the "largely impossible" comment on 2 fronts. I agree that the ideal translator would have an identical life history to the author. But if the text is about budo, then a budoka should do. We just shouldn't have so many budoka who are not shown internal theory. It is said that there are supposedly thousands of people doing internal training-- even if not great at it or deep into it, they would be much better translators than a neophyte. The bilingual fraction of those has got to be low, but considering the fact that this stuff is teachable provided one really doesn't like keeping secrets-- we shouldn't be struggling to find translators. I suppose one could argue that I am looking forward to an ideal near future rather than practically looking at the past or present.
The other reason I think translation should have gone much better: if someone writes 六方 and you don't know what it means, you don't write "60 degrees," unless "60 degrees" can legitimately be written that way. You could put a literal translation ("6 directions" or "6 facets"), with a footnote that a technical term has been employed, about which the translator does not understand. It is an admission of ignorance that can potentially salvage the translation, rather than a requirement for understanding (which would of course be better than salvage). Maybe that's just personal taste.

Quote:

Peter A Goldsbury wrote:

there are no grounds for believing that 六方 means anything related to internal training.

I underestimated this before because I thought it was an old term. But at least, Mike Sigman pointed out here that "sanchin" is an old term. So beyond poetic license, it does sound like a related technical term.

Quote:

Peter A Goldsbury wrote:

wrongly assume that teaching someone how to ride a bicycle is the same as describing what someone is actually doing when they are riding one.

I just want to point out how much I agree that this issue is important. I love objective analysis but "what happens" is for me a separate pursuit than understanding "how does one make it happen."

On the other hand, there are no grounds for believing that 六方 means anything related to internal training.

It may not. But, not being any sort of Japanese language expert, I went off to my trusty google to read about roppo in kabuki and got this: "Its [roppo's] literal meaning is 'six directions' and the term may have been derived from the purification ceremony of low ranking priests where they referred to heaven, earth, east, west, north and south", which seems to wrap the whole discussion up into one tight little ball.

So maybe I'm just be free-associating, but the internal training we're doing right now uses "6 directions" to talk about a specific way of balancing ki; and my sensei has been using this language when teaching sword work; and I'm finding that using the "6 directions" concept combined with practical teaching of sword are changing my hanmi in interesting and powerful ways.

To find that O-Sensei may have been teaching basic hanmi this way from the beginning is... interesting.

Do you know how it has been revised, I assume by comparison with the English edition by John Stevens?

I just looked it over when I thought of bying the German edition. What I didn't do. So I can't give a detailed comparison.

But the German edition was edited by a publisher who is known to emphasize the "love and harmony aspects" of aikido and also the "aikido outside the dojo aspects".
The "martial" aspects do not interest him in the same way.
He is the owner of one of the only two dojo in Germany which follow Tohei sensei.

This "weighting" of different "aspects" of aikido can be found in his Text.

I remember one example:
There is one passage where Stevens translates - my words - 'in real battle/fight strike your opponents face with full force'.
This sentence simply doesnt't exist in the German Text.
Whether - or how - it is found in the Japanese Text I don' tknow?

It may not. But, not being any sort of Japanese language expert, I went off to my trusty google to read about roppo in kabuki and got this: "Its [roppo's] literal meaning is 'six directions' and the term may have been derived from the purification ceremony of low ranking priests where they referred to heaven, earth, east, west, north and south", which seems to wrap the whole discussion up into one tight little ball.

So maybe I'm just be free-associating, but the internal training we're doing right now uses "6 directions" to talk about a specific way of balancing ki; and my sensei has been using this language when teaching sword work; and I'm finding that using the "6 directions" concept combined with practical teaching of sword are changing my hanmi in interesting and powerful ways.

To find that O-Sensei may have been teaching basic hanmi this way from the beginning is... interesting.

Yes, of course. Do not misunderstand me. There might well be a connection with the use of the term roppo in kabuki with internal training. However, for this I would be more interested in looking at how kabuki actors were trained and in seeing if there is any link with the training of Noh actors, who also used a very distinctive way of walking.

The Google link you cited about the purification of low ranking priests is from the blog of Michael Glenn, of the Bujinkan Dojo of Santa Monica, but he gives no source for his suggestion. A monolingual Japanese dictionary simply lists the six directions as a primary use of the term, without any reference to low ranking priests. The use in kabuki is further down the list, and is preceded by the reference to the swaggering gait of dandified Edo samurai. Glenn also quotes the AJ interview with Seigo Okamoto, who also discusses the uses of roppo, including his explanation of roppo wo fumu in kabuki. Okamoto Sensei's explanation is somewhat different from that given by Saito Sensei in the Budo volume and this suggests to me a difference in Okamoto's understanding of the term and Saito's.

There is also something very curious about Saito Sensei's explanation of hanmi on p.34. He states that the Founder did not use the term hanmi when the Japanese Budo volume was written, but the term appears in the Japanese text I quoted earlier.

There is also something very curious about Saito Sensei's explanation of hanmi on p.34. He states that the Founder did not use the term hanmi when the Japanese Budo volume was written, but the term appears in the Japanese text I quoted earlier.

Best wishes,

Which says quite a lot about what Saito Sensei may have understood or misunderstood.

There is also something very curious about Saito Sensei's explanation of hanmi on p.34. He states that the Founder did not use the term hanmi when the Japanese Budo volume was written, but the term appears in the Japanese text I quoted earlier.

That is curious-- my understanding is that Saito did not meet him until 8 years after Budo was produced. Wouldn't Saito have been a 10 year old boy in Iwama who had never heard of Ueshiba at the time?

The Google link you cited about the purification of low ranking priests is from the blog of Michael Glenn, of the Bujinkan Dojo of Santa Monica, but he gives no source for his suggestion.

Oops, I didn't post a reference, did I? I actually found the text I quoted here: http://www.creative-arts.net/kabuki/...%20content.htm and the page is copyrighted by Michael Spencer. Somebody seems to have been cribbing from somebody. He provides an email link, so I went ahead and fired off a query. I'll post here if I hear anything back from him.